Complementary therapy in atopic eczema: the latest systematic reviews

The use of complementary and alternative medicine in children with atopic eczema at a tertiary care centre in Malaysia

OBJECTIVE

Globally, the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) for children with atopic eczema (AE) is gaining popularity. At present, information on the pattern of CAM use in Malaysia among children with AE is limited. This study aimed to investigate the pattern of CAM use in children with AE and factors associated with its use.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey conducted at a tertiary care centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia among parents of children with AE aged ≤ 12 years using validated questionnaires including Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ-General) and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scale.

RESULTS

In total, 173 parents were recruited. The prevalence of CAM use over the last 12-month period was 46.8 %. The most commonly used CAM was Ruqyah (Islamic prayer), followed by Malay herbs, virgin coconut oil, nutritional therapy and homeopathy. AE severity from parental perspective was the major predictor of CAM use based on multiple logistic regression analysis. Parents of children with 'clear or almost clear' (adjusted OR 0.06; 95 % CI 0.01-0.54; p = 0.012) and 'mild' (adjusted OR 0.15; 95 % CI 0.03-0.85; p = 0.032) eczema were less likely to use CAM than those with 'very severe eczema'.

CONCLUSION

CAM use was prevalent among children with AE. Its use was significantly associated with AE severity from a parental perspective. Healthcare providers may need to enquire parents about CAM use for their child during routine clinic appointment.

Reinterpreting homoeopathy in the light of placebo effects to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care: A systematic review

Homoeopathy is widespread, and users claim to benefit from it. However, clear evidence of its efficacy over placebo is not available to date. As a consequence, a social separation between homoeopathy users and mainstream medicine exists, exposing these patients to many risks. Our primary objective is to assess homoeopathy efficacy by systematically reviewing existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to systematically review trials on open-label placebo (OLP) treatments. A secondary objective is to understand if homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homoeopathy efficacy, and 61 studies were included. Same databases plus Journal of Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (JIPS) were also systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on OLP treatments, and 10 studies were included. Databases were searched up to 24 February 2018. Two authors independently screened all retrieved articles and selected studies eligible for inclusion. The quality of reviews of included studies was evaluated with a dedicated NIH tool in the first review, whereas the risk of bias of trials of included studies was assessed with the specific Cochrane tool in the second review. Qualitative syntheses show that homoeopathy efficacy can be considered comparable to placebo, and that OLP treatments may be effective in some health conditions. Placebo effects like placebo itself, treatment context, physician-patient relationship, and other nonspecific factors can define the idea of placebo treatments, which may be effective in some conditions. If homoeopathy efficacy is comparable to placebo, and if placebo treatments can be effective in some conditions, then homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment. Reinterpreting homoeopathy as a placebo treatment would define limits and possibilities of this practice. This perspective shift suggests a strategy to manage patients who seek homoeopathic care and to reconcile them with mainstream medicine in a sustainable way.